Get LINE OA Status

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it aggregates 4 LINE API calls into one card and mentions that friends count may be omitted if not retrievable. This provides behavioral context beyond annotations, though it could further detail error scenarios.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two short paragraphs plus clear args/returns/examples. No redundant sentences; each element earns its place. Front-loaded with the main purpose, then usage guidelines, then technical details.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (aggregating multiple API calls) and lack of output schema, the description defines the full return structure. It also provides examples and usage context. Minor gap: no explicit mention of error handling, but acceptable given annotations.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds a structured return object with field explanations (e.g., quota with used/total/remaining), which is valuable since there is no output schema. The examples further illustrate parameter usage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description starts with "Quick health check of a LINE Official Account: friend count, monthly quota usage, webhook status, and current default rich menu." This clearly specifies the verb (get, check) and resource (OA status) and distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform specific actions like sending messages or managing audiences.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly states: "Use this as the first call of a session — every other tool decision (whether to send, schedule, switch OA, etc.) benefits from knowing current quota and webhook state." This provides clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, indicating it is a prerequisite for other OA operations.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.